GOOD OR BAD IDEA? -- VASECTOMY PLEA DEAL

[HairOfTheDog]

A Virginia man who has fathered children with several women has agreed to get a vasectomy to reduce his prison term by up to five years in a child endangerment case that has evoked the country's dark history of forced sterilization.

None of the charges against Jessie Lee Herald, 27 (pictured above) involved a sexual offense. Shenandoah County assistant prosecutor Ilona White said her chief motive in making the extraordinarily unusual offer was keeping Herald from fathering more than the seven children he has by at least six women.

"He needs to be able to support the children he already has when he gets out," she said, adding that Herald and the state both benefit from the deal, first reported by the Northern Virginia Daily.

"This takes on the appearance of social engineering," said Steve Benjamin of Richmond, past president of the Virginia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who said he has never heard of a case like Herald's.

(Under the plea deal) Herald, of Edinburg, was sentenced this month to one year and eight months in prison for child endangerment, hit and run , and driving on a suspended license in a crash in which authorities said his 3-year-old son was bloodied but not seriously hurt.

The agreement requires Herald to undergo the operation within a year of being released from prison and prohibits him from having the vasectomy reversed while he is on probation.

Herald will have to pay for the vasectomy, which can cost from a few hundred dollars to more than $1,000. Ramsey said the reason for giving his client a year to get the surgery was to give him time to come up with the money.

Benjamin, who said he was speaking in general terms and not about a specific case, said a vasectomy simply should not be a factor in plea negotiations.

"Sentencing conditions are designed to prevent future criminal behavior," he said. "Fathering children is not criminal behavior."

Full story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ement.html

[Duchess]

I don't have a problem with it. I think it makes sense. It's not he's being forced.

[ramseycat]

Agreed. He can do his full sentence and keep his boys intact. I'm sure he can't support the children he has now. He already had 7 kids. That's plenty.

[Duchess]

Jesus. I left out an entire word.

[ramseycat]

Welcome to Ramsey World!

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I don't think even Forded sterilization is a bad thing. People that continue to breed kids they can't feed is wrong, period.

[QueenBee]

OK, on the one hand, fine, we do not need this POS bringing more kids into the world. BUT, why shorten a child endangerment sentence because he gets snipped? How can they assure he will no longer endanger the life and welfare of the children he already has. I do not see how one equals the other.
Snip him, yes, but let him pay the full legal consequences for the child endangerment. Lesson may still not be learned, but justice will be served.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Agreed

[Duchess]

I would agree to a great many things if it meant those people would be spayed and/or neutered.

[Cutz]

Snip him, yes, but let him pay the full legal consequences for the child endangerment. Lesson may still not be learned, but justice will be served.

You can't encourage him to get a vasectomy without incentive. If they were forcing him to get one, this would be a much bigger case. If prosecutors feel it will lessen the overall negative he will impose on the world, I see it as a fair trade off.

Personally, I would love a free vasectomy. Criminals get all the good stuff.